Hanson Idiocy Watch
By Then why has not bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri turned jihadist attention to either country? While neither has troops in the Middle East, each might at least warrant some hateful rhetoric, inasmuch as their policies make the Danish cartoonists or the poor Pope pale in comparison.
The answer is, as we know, that China and Russia are not only strong like the United States, but, unlike America, wildly unpredictable and seemingly a little crazy. No jihadist quite knows what would be the reaction to a campaign of suicide bombing on Moscow or Beijing, and, more importantly, no rogue nation that sponsors Islamic fascists wishes to find out. What Middle Eastern state wishes to discover what being on the receiving end of a Russian nuclear version of the Beslan or Moscow theater “rescues” might look like?
Islamic terrorists haven’t turned their attention on Russia? Living in the real world, I was under the impression that the war on Chechnya had resulted in the influx of large numbers of “jihadists” who have carried out a relentless campaign of terror against Russian targets, the most notable being the seizure of a school at Beslan. Indeed, I have been almost ready to believe that this campaign of terror has far exceeded in length, body count, and devastation any reaction to Danish cartoonists or to the Pope’s speech on Islam. But then, I guess I just concentrate way too much on “stuff that actually happened” and “reality” to appreciate the good professor. In Hanson’s world, terrorism against Russia can’t be all that bad, because Russia is strong and has the “will” to slaughter thousands at the drop of a dime. Ergo, evidence that Russia suffers from a severe terrorist problem in spite of its Carthaginian approach doesn’t register. It’s like that time that Israel retaliated for a terrorist attack, solving once and for all its problems with Islamic terrorism…
On roughly the same front, Hanson writes:
The problems in Iraq, in the radical Middle East at large—with democratization, with nuclearization, with Islamism—are not, repeat not, a lack of dialogue with Syria and Iran.
We know what both rogue states wish and it is our exit from the Middle East and thus a free hand to undermine the newly established democracies of Lebanon and Iraq—in the manner that all autocracies must destroy their antitheses.
They both sponsor and harbor terrorists for a reason—to undermine anything Western: a Western-leaning Lebanese democracy, a Western-style democracy in Iraq, a Westernized Israel, or soldiers of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Professor Hanson is apparently unaware that, until the Axis of Evil speech, Iran was quite cooperative with the United States in Afghanistan, supporting Western operations in areas along its border and seeking actively to undermine the Taliban. Iran wasn’t doing the US any favors, of course, but it was possible to reach accomodation on a subject that both countries had an interest in. One might be inclined to believe that a similar accomodation would be possible in regards to Iraq; maybe not, but at least worth trying. In any case, VD’s recommended policy course would also preclude any cooperation with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Pakistan, as they are certainly autocracies and thus must destroy their antithesis. There also an echo here of the same problem discussed above; because Iran and Syria don’t respond to forceful rhetoric and to the invasion of Iraq in the way we want them to, they must be irrational haters of the West, dedicated to no-holds barred destruction of everything we love, valuing our pain even more than their own lives, etc. I guess this is how guys like Hanson get around the empirical puzzle of how some countries aren’t intimidated by our threats.
If we are to judge an ideological movement by the firepower of its intellectuals, neoconservatism appears to be in terrible, terrible shape. Hanson is a third rate hack who would have been consigned to the dust bin of any healthy intellectual program. Instead, he finds worshipful disciples and is regularly linked to by Insty, himself at an advanced stage of intellectual outsourcing. If I wanted to offer a psychological explanation, I would probably suggest that something about the way wingnuts think makes men like VD, who write in big words about distant subjects with great historical themes but little substance, particularly attractive. It’s probably not accidental that this crew loves the sweeping historical epic, like Braveheart, Gladiator, or the John Milius’ penned Rome. Lacking anything better to do with their time than the aforementioned 16 hour Civ IV marathon, they want to understand themselves as at the forefront of some grand, civilizational struggle, and VD Hanson can offer them that. I guess the gig pays well enough…